Submarine that can fly. Or an airplane that can go under water. I want you really search your heart and mind and come up with the most innovative invention that you can think of in order to advance our military. Nothing is impossible. What do you have?

Here is something that I'm sure the whole country can agree with........

Undecided
(Please leave a comment)

None of the above
(Please leave a comment)

Loading Demographics...

Click an icon to see demographic results

Display unknown and private

This is my idea...........

7 votes

58%

The Military should come up with something that can...........

0 votes

0%

Here is something that I'm sure the whole country can agree with........

2 votes

17%

Undecided

0 votes

0%

None of the above

3 votes

25%

You!

Add Photos & Videos

The goal is to complete as many missions as possible with no loss of life.

The answer is simple: Submarines cannot fly, but seaplanes can submerge -- if you build them properly. That's what the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is seeking to develop. A recent Request for Proposal (RFP) from DARPA calls for a submersible aircraft [that] would combine the key capabilities of three different platforms: (1) the speed and range of an aircraft; (2) the loiter capabilities of a boat; and (3) the stealth of a submarine. "By combining the beneficial characteristics the and operating modes of each platform, DARPA hopes to develop a craft that will significantly enhance the United States tactical advantage in coastal insertion missions," according to the RFP.

The irony of the RFP is that the U.S. Navy was developing such a craft some 45 years ago.

The objectives issued by DARPA are for a vehicle that would have an airborne tactical radius of 1,000 nautical miles, a low-level flight radius of 100 nautical miles (which may leverage surface effects), and a submerged tactical radius of 12 nautical miles. The sum of these must be achieved within eight hours. Endurance on the surface has to be 72 hours in sea states up to five between inserting and extracting personnel. The craft's payload objective is eight men and their equipment with a total cargo weight of 2,000 pounds.

DARPA has identified the major challenges to the project as (1) weight, (2) fluid flow regime, (3) structure, (4) lifting surface geometry, and (5) power and energy storage. These factors force the consideration of a seaplane that can submerge as opposed to a "submarine that can fly." The relatively light construction of an aircraft can be submerged to shallow depths, and to even great depths with internal pressurization. But submarine-like vehicles, built to withstand greater depths, are too heavy for consideration.

The U.S. Navy had begun contemplating the merger of aviation and submarine technologies into a single vehicle as early as 1946. By that time several Navy laboratories were looking into the required technologies. When asked by the press in 1946 whether such a vehicle could be produced, Vice Admiral Arthur W. Radford, at the time the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air, replied: "Nothing is impossible." It is significant that, despite various nomenclature, from the outs

A decade later, in 1955, studies were being conducted under contract from the Department of Defense by the All American Engineering Company while aviation pioneer John K. (Jack) Northrop was designing such craft. The All American vehicle was to alight on and takeoff from the water on "hydro-skis"; once on the water the craft could be "sealed" and submerge.

Although nothing resulted from these studies, by the early 1960s the U.S. Navy was ready to invest in such a vehicle. A Navy engineer working on the project, Eugene H. Handler, explained, in a 1964 article in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,

There is... a tremendous amount of [Soviet] shipping in the Soviet-dominated Baltic Sea, the essentially land-locked Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the truly inland Caspian Sea. These waters are safe from the depredations of conventional surface ships and submarines.

The Navy's Bureau of Naval Weapons -- at the time responsible for aircraft development -- awarding a contract to Convair in 1964 to examine the feasibility of a "submersible flying boat," which was being called the "sub-plane" by those involved with the project. The Convair study determined that such a craft was "feasible, practical and well within the state of the art."

Several firms responded to a Navy request and a contract was awarded to Convair to develop the craft. The flying boat, which would alight and takeoff using retractable hydro-skis, would be propelled by three engines -- two turbojets and one turbofan, the former for use in takeoff and the latter for long-endurance cruise flight. Among the more difficult challenges of the design was the necessity of removing air from the engines and the partially full fuel tank to reduce buoyancy for submerging. Convair engineers proposed opening the bottom of the fuel tank to the sea, using a rubber diaphragm to separate the fluids and using the engines to hold the displaced fuel.

To submerge, the pilot would cut off fuel to the engines, spin them with their starter motors for a moment or two to cool the metal, close butterfly valves at each end of the nacelles, and open the sea valve at the bottom of the fuel tank. As the seaplane submerged, water would rise up into the fuel tank beneath the rubber membrane, pushing the fuel up into the engine nacelles. Upon surfacing, the fuel would flow back down into the tank. The only impact on the engines would be a cloud of soot when the engines were started.

When the engines were started their thrust would raise the plane up onto its skis, enabling the hull, wings, and tail surfaces to drain. The transition time from surfacing to takeoff was estimated to be two or three minutes, including extending the wings, which would fold or retract for submergence. Only the cockpit and avionics systems were to be enclosed in pressure-resistant structures. The rest of the aircraft would be "free-flooding." In an emergency the crew capsule would be ejected from the aircraft to descend by parachute when in flight, or released and float to the surface when underwater. In either situation the buoyant, enclosed capsule would serve as a life raft.

The craft would have a two-man crew and could carry mines, torpedoes or, under certain conditions, agents to be landed or taken off enemy territory.

The Navy Department approved development of the craft, with models subsequently being tested in towing tanks and wind tunnels. The results were most promising. But in 1966 Senator Allen Ellender, of the Senate's Committee on Armed Services, savagely attacked the project. His ridicule and sarcasm forced the Navy to cancel a project that held promise for a highly interesting "submarine." Although the utility of the craft was questioned, from a design viewpoint it was both challenging and highly innovative.

DARPA would do well to check the Navy's historical records as it embarks on the development of a flying submarine -- -oops, I mean submerging seaplane.

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) has carried out the first partial delivery of seven light FLW 100 weapon stations to the Federal Office for Defence Technology and Procurement (BWB). The contract signed in July of this year allows for the production and delivery of 230 light (FLW 100) and 190 heavy weapon stations (FLW 200) in all.

Only four months after signature of the contract, the first weapon stations, which can be mounted any type of vehicle, have now been handed over to the Bundeswehr.

This was only possible because all participating firms, under the leadership of KMW, began advance production immediately after the selection decision at the end of 2007, at their own financial risk, in order to meet the planned delivery deadlines.

With the prompt delivery of the first seven weapon stations, KMW has been able to make a valuable contribution to the security of Bundeswehr soldiers in their missions abroad.

In order to respond to the resulting increased need for protection, the Bundeswehr decided to equip its vehicles with light and heavy weapon stations of the types FLW 100 and 200 in the framework of its 'GFF' ("protected command and role-specific vehicle") procurement programme.

KMW was thus able to convince the Bundeswehr as to both m...

What about this?:

Remote-Controlled Weapon Stations

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) has carried out the first partial delivery of seven light FLW 100 weapon stations to the Federal Office for Defence Technology and Procurement (BWB). The contract signed in July of this year allows for the production and delivery of 230 light (FLW 100) and 190 heavy weapon stations (FLW 200) in all.

Only four months after signature of the contract, the first weapon stations, which can be mounted any type of vehicle, have now been handed over to the Bundeswehr.

This was only possible because all participating firms, under the leadership of KMW, began advance production immediately after the selection decision at the end of 2007, at their own financial risk, in order to meet the planned delivery deadlines.

With the prompt delivery of the first seven weapon stations, KMW has been able to make a valuable contribution to the security of Bundeswehr soldiers in their missions abroad.

In order to respond to the resulting increased need for protection, the Bundeswehr decided to equip its vehicles with light and heavy weapon stations of the types FLW 100 and 200 in the framework of its 'GFF' ("protected command and role-specific vehicle") procurement programme.

KMW was thus able to convince the Bundeswehr as to both modular weapon stations in a comparative test, and prevailed against competing international products.

Remote-controlled weapon stationsBoth the FLW 100 and the FLW 200 can be operated by remote control by the vehicle crew from within the armoured interior, using a monitor with integrated day- and night-vision devices. A further technical feature of the system is the so-called gyroscopic stabilisation, which enables an extremely precise and controlled deployment of the weapons even during high-speed movement through rugged terrain.

In addition, the stations permit a rapid change in armament. The respective equipment range - from machine guns up to automatic grenade launchers - is automatically recognized, and the station adapts its ballistics accordingly.

A further advantage is that the system can be mounted on the vehicle without making roof openings, due to its modular design. This means that no moving parts are located in the interior of the vehicle and the level of protection of the vehicles is not reduced by the integration.

The integrated security system of the weapon stations also takes the vehicle silhouette, the vehicle-specific arrangement of hatches, doors and body areas, into account. The weapon station will thus not fire on the vehicle itself by mistake.

OK. That's an idea for a policy change. But what invention idea do you have? Is there something that you can come up with that would advance the US and not cost any lives? I'm not looking to start political arguments, just scientific and innovative ideas and inventions.

Well, OK then if I must get down in the minutiae: my leaning would be chemicals that disable: something that caused 24 hr blindness, or a muscle relaxant that prevented movement (but then your heart would stop so that wouldn't work) or something that caused temporary deafness (a slight disabler). But I suppose androids would do except they would cost more than humans (if you don't care about human life). Whatevr on-the-ground weapons we developed, those ingenious enemies would figure out a way to beat it. What if there was a chameleon style thing where we could use holograms to disguise our true looks and look like them and they wouldn't be able to figure out if we were the enemy or not?

The new materials instead work at wavelengths around those used in the telecommunications industry—much nearer to the visible part of the spectrum.

Two different teams led by Zhang made objects made of so-called metamaterials—artificial structures with features smaller than the wavelength of light that give the materials their unusual properties.

One approach used nanometre-scale stacks of silver and magnesium fluoride in a "fishnet" structure, while another made use of nanowires made of silver.

Light is neither absorbed nor reflected by the objects, passing "like water flowing around a rock," according to the researchers. As a result, only the light from behind the objects can be seen.

Cloak and shadow

Close-up of cloaking material, J Valentine et al. NatureThe fine structure of the material gives it light-bending abilities"This is a huge step forward, a tremendous achievement," says Professor Ortwin Hess of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey.

"It's a careful choice of the right materials and the right structuring to get this effect for the first time at these wavelengths."

There could be more immediate applications for the devices in telecommunications, Prof Hess says.

What's more, they could be used to make better microscopes, allowing images of far smaller objects than conventional microscopes can see.

And a genuine cloaking effect isn't far around the corner.

"In order to have the 'Harry Potter' effect, you just need to find the right materials for the visible wavelengths," says Prof Hess, "and it's absolutely thrilling to see we're on the right.

A spokesperson for the US Department of Defence has confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a gay conversion chemical weapon in 1994.

The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop "chemicals that effect (sic) human behaviour so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic).

"One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behaviour."

The Pentagon has said the proposal was never implemented.

Details of the "gay weapon" were revealed by Project Sunshine, a watchdog group which monitors chemical and biological warfare agent development.

The Servicemembers Legal Defence Network, a group that fights the current "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy towards gay, lesbian and bisexuals in the American armed forces, drew attention to the Air Force plan last week.

"The Air Force's proposal is delusional, homophobic and offensive" said C. Dixon Osburn, Executive Director of the SLDN.

"The assertion that a gay opponent would be somehow less effective in combat is outrageous. No one questioned the battle prowess of Alexander the Great because of his sexual orientation."

The US military is in the middle of a recru...

'""

''

"'

"'"

US CONSIDERED WEAPON TO TURN ENEMY GAY

A spokesperson for the US Department of Defence has confirmed a report that Air Force officials proposed developing a gay conversion chemical weapon in 1994.

The proposal, part of a plan from Wright Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, was to develop "chemicals that effect (sic) human behaviour so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely effected (sic).

"One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behaviour."

The Pentagon has said the proposal was never implemented.

Details of the "gay weapon" were revealed by Project Sunshine, a watchdog group which monitors chemical and biological warfare agent development.

The Servicemembers Legal Defence Network, a group that fights the current "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy towards gay, lesbian and bisexuals in the American armed forces, drew attention to the Air Force plan last week.

"The Air Force's proposal is delusional, homophobic and offensive" said C. Dixon Osburn, Executive Director of the SLDN.

"The assertion that a gay opponent would be somehow less effective in combat is outrageous. No one questioned the battle prowess of Alexander the Great because of his sexual orientation."

The US military is in the middle of a recruitment crisis, with troops fighting two foreign wars and President Bush sending more soldiers to Iraq.

Figures released by the Pentagon show that the American armed forces are resorting to accepting thousands of convicted criminals into their ranks.

A recruitment crisis has forced the Army and others to lower their standards, while continuing to discharge hundreds of personnel for being gay, lesbian or bisexual.

A report in yesterday's New York Times revealed that last year alone 8,129 "moral waivers" were granted - a mechanism which allows someone with a criminal record to enlist in the military.

They represent a tenth of new recruits last year. The US military has already raised the maximum enlistment age and dropped the basic educational standards required of recruits.

In 1992 President Bill Clinton promised to open the military to openly gay and lesbian people during his successful campaign for President, but caved into pressure from the Army - the compromise was the current policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

The policy means gay, bisexual or lesbians can serve in the Armed Forces as long as they conceal their orientation.

Recently a former Army general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US called for a change in attitude towards gay and lesbian soldiers, as did former Defence Secretary William Cohen.

Earlier this month New York congressman mocked the current policy. During a House hearing Gary Ackerman said:

"For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are (of) terrorists, but they're very brave with the terrorists.

"If the terrorists ever got hold of this information, they'd get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad."

SLDN figures show that the US military has discharged over 11,000 personnel for being gay or lesbian since 1993.